Memory Beta:Votes for approval of supplemental images/rejected
ChristineVale.jpg VOTES: *'no' --Chops 01:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) *'no' --Arcarsenal 03:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC) *'neutral' --Sci 07:36 25 April 2006 UTC *'no' --Emperorkalan 12:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC) *'no'--Farragut79 23:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC) *'neutral' --Turtletrekker 08:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC) *'no.' -- Lieutenant Ayala 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC) DISCUSSION Two things would be required for me to vote yes: #A source that establishes the similarity. Preferably an author comment, but a majority vote on TrekBBS's Lit section would be enough. #A starfleet uniform photoshopped in. At the very least, a brighter head-only shot that doesn't immediately make me think of CSI. --Chops 01:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) :I'll second these caveats.--Emperorkalan 12:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC) *'neutral' for now, but we really need to make her less "21st century". If there was a vote on the BBS as to who the best Vale would be, I think it would go to Katee Sackoff. In fact there is a thread pinned up right now about casting novel characters, I think I'll bring this up.--Turtletrekker 08:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC) My own primative attempt is at left. Surely someone else can do better?--Turtletrekker 09:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Well, it looks like it's now been seven days since the final vote, and the tally seems to be for deletion. -- Sci 07:31 6 April 2006 UTC Akyazi.jpg VOTES: *'no' --Chops 01:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) *'no' --Arcarsenal 03:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC) *'no' --Emperorkalan 12:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC) *'neutral' -- Sci 17:52 26 April 2006 UTC *'no'--Turtletrekker 08:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC) *'no.' -- Lieutenant Ayala 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC) DISCUSSION There must be liscensed pics of this ship --Chops 01:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) On top of Chops' comment, we would also need permission from the 3D artist who rendered that shot.--Emperorkalan 12:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC) :I'll change to a "yes" if we get permission from the 3D artist, as per Emperorkalan's comment. A liscenced pic would be better, if one exists.--Turtletrekker 08:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC) It now looks to have been seven days here, and all but one of the votes are in the negative. -- Sci 07:33 6 May 2006 UTC Kenneth Wescott.jpg VOTES: *'no' --Chops 01:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) *'no' --Arcarsenal 03:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC) *'yes' -- Sci 07:39 25 April 2006 UTC *'no'--Emperorkalan 12:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC) *'no' --Turtletrekker 05:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC) *'No.' - Lieutenant Ayala DISCUSSION At least lose the uniform. --Chops 01:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) :When I put the image up, I tried to crop it enough that what he was wearing wouldn't be clearly visible. As I noted on the page, I put the image up as a tip of the hat to the Kennedy-esque spirit TOS embodies and to the fact that Wescott, like Kennedy, was described as being the youngest president ever elected and governed in a 60s decade. -- Sci 07:39 25 April 2006 UTC ::But it's not "Kennedy-esque", it's Kennedy -- clearly, recognizably, and unaltered. That particular portrait is too identifiable. This isn't to say a photo of Kennedy can't be altered to depict Wescott, but I'm against using this particular image.--Emperorkalan 12:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC) :::What image would be better to use, then? Any photo or image of Kennedy will be clearly and recognizably him, after all, and the 23rd Century "business suits" that we saw in "The Trouble With Tribbles" weren't terribly different than those of the 20th. What kind of alterations would you suggest? -- Sci 17:51 26 April 2006 UTC :::: Depends on the photo used: Certainly one thing would be altering his hair to give him those TOS pointy sideburns. Much of the rest would probably be context: put him at a table with Klingons, and call it "signing the Organian Peace Treaty", or combine it with pics of "60's futuristic" architecture (the '62 or '64 Worlds Fairs, or that college campus they used as Deneva) and say its from a speech he made in Mojave, etc. The biggest problem with the one you had was that it was a portrait, clearly showing his face. At least Eisenhower's portrait turned him into into a Bolian. Collect a few images, think of a theme, and see what can be done.--Emperorkalan 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC) :::::Alas, that would take photoshopping skills far in excess of mine own... Anyone volunteer? -- Sci 05:29 27 April 2006 UTC : No. Unlike the Eisenhower pic, there is nothing "Trek" about this pic.--Turtletrekker 08:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Lieutenant Ayala didn't put his timesigniture on his vote, but I'd presume it was made around the same time as his other votes, so I'd say it's been seven days now. And, with a five-to-one vote, it would seem that the nays have it. -- Sci 07:37 6 May 2006 UTC Vanguard emblem and Katie Sackoff as Vale Two images have come up recently on the Trek BBS that I thought we should consider using, pending permission of the artists of course. The Vanguard emblem was created by Vanguard series editor Marco Palmieriand refined by designer Masao Okazaki, and can be seen here... This Katee Sackoff as Christine Vale pic was created by a TrekBBS user named Starfury and can be seen here... I like this one, especially given our community's previous, unsuccessful efforts at a Vale image. We can vote while I try to obtain creator permission. :Yes on the Vanguard emblem, as it was created by the same two people responsible for the design of Starbase 47 and the USS Sagitarrius. :No on Vale, as it is an unlicensed piece of fanwork, and also because it uses the image of a real-life person who has no actual connection to Trek. --Seventy 01:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC) ::Then what about our image of President Eisenhower as Min Zife? We don't disallow images just because they are fanwork if they are good work. This forum was created to separate the good from the bad. Many of the authors who have written Vale have stated on the Trek BBS that Sackoff would be the perfect choice for Vale. --Turtletrekker 02:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC) :::Then what about our image of President Eisenhower as Min Zife? -- Uh... what about it? I voted against that abomination, too, and would love nothing more than to see it deleted ASAP. So, what is your point? --Seventy 04:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC) ::::Then maybe we should vote on the Zife image again because including one but not the other is hypocrisy of massive Memory Alpha proportions. It's an artists interpretation, and this wiki used to be flexable enough to include them. Sadly this wiki is resembling the ridiculously ridgid MA more each and every day which can only serve to this wiki's detriment. Stuff like this is the reason I don't go to MA and may soon be the reason I abandon this place as well. --Turtletrekker 14:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC) :Yes, to the Vanguard image, but no to Sackhoff. I would rather wait to see Vale on a Titan cover (it'll happen sometime), but since Sackhoff is "endorsed" by Marco and the others, I could accept it. However, I don't feel this image cuts it. If we want a Sackhoff-as-Vale image, I can design one specifically for the wiki, using a real-screencap uniform, rather than that Poser-created body. Just say the word. --TimPendragon 06:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC) :Yes to the Vanguard insignia since it originated from the creators of the concept. No on Sackhoff as Christine Vale as the image currently exists. I think we can do better than a photo head on a CGI body. That said, I'm not thrilled with the idea of using Sackhoff's likeness. At first glance, the image looked like Starbuck in a Starfleet uniform whereas the Min Zife image did not immediately ring out and scream Dwight Eisenhower to me. Perhaps that's the caveat of makeup. Were Vale a Tellarite, I doubt we'd be having this discussion. I know Marco et al. have all said Sackhoff would be a perfect choice for Christine Vale, but there has to be someone else who fits the bill and isn't the star of another popular sci-fi show.--Julianbaischir 15:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC) :Definitely Yes for the Vanguard insignia, and after properly studying the proposed image of Christine Vale, I would say a provisional Yes for that image, until an image becomes available from a novel cover (or hopefully a comic). Having pictures in an article definitely enhances the article.--The Doctor 15:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC) :Yes to both, I really like the Vanguard emblem and I think the fact that Marco created makes it pretty much official. As for the Vale pick, I've always been a big fan of the idea of Katee Sackoff being Chris, and since this is the best we've gotten so far, I say we use it. At least until Vale appears on a Titan cover, which probably won't be for at least a year or two, and I'm sorry but I really want to see some sort of image for Vale till then. --JDB Well, KRAD now says over at TrekBBS: "I never pictured Amanda Tapping for Vale, but I can't think of a good reason why not, sooooo....." So, someone tell me why we should use a Sackoff-as-Vale image here instead of a Tapping-as-Vale pic? --Seventy 02:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC) :Why not have both? Why would we want to limit creativity? This database isn't about creating one strict interpretation of what Trek ought or ought not to be -- which is why we accept info from all licensed sources, even contradictory ones! I don't see why we can't have multiple visual interpretations of a character in lieu of an official image of the character from a book. Yes to the Vanguard insignia and Yes to the Sackoff picture. -- Sci 03:54 15 OCT 2006 UTC ::Why would we want to limit creativity? Well, if this is a site for unlimited creativity, let's lift the restriction on non-licensed sources. Let's just make up any shit we want and throw it in wherever we please, and to hell with the stated purpose of the wiki! Seriously, how do you justify disallowing textual information from unlicensed stories, and allowing unlicensed images? ::And, not for nothing... but have you looked at the Christine Vale article recently? It stops dead at Taking Wing, with no effort to integrate any additional information from the last two Titan novels. (And, if you check the history log, you'll see we've gone through an entire other image debate with still no substantive additions to the article!) Right now, anyone coming to this wiki looking for established information on Vale will see that, and conclude this site is not very thorough. Add a picture of Katee Sackoff's head on a Starfleet uniform, and anyone coming for information will conclude this wiki is not very serious. ::The only reason I'm here is because I want a serious site. Look at my contribution log, look at how many new articles I have to my credit. I want an informational site that I, as a Trek Lit fan, can use and refer to like I do the ST Encyclopedia and "Memory Alpha", and I'm willing to put the effort of combing through old books in order to create it. And I get very discouraged when I see my fellow contributors putting more passion into arguing for Photoshop images, and for "expressing creativity". If that's going to be the purpose of the site, then why should I even bother anymore? --Seventy 19:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC) :::I for one don't know why you think that there's some distinction between being a serious resource and encouraging creativity. :::Secondly, we justify not including info from non-licensed sources while including nonlicensed fan images because we only allow fan images of subjects from licensed works, and, further, because we do not allow all of them but only those approved of on a case-by-case basis, and, on top of that, because we delete said images when a licensed image becomes available. Just look at the Gorn Hegemony image deletion that's being undertaken. :::Thirdly, if you're that dissatisfied with the Christine Vale article proper, then I suggest that you add to it! I haven't expanded it because the character doesn't interest me, because I have limited time with which to contribute, and because I'm more interested in other subjects, but by all means, this is a team effort! Why do I take the time to argue over images like these if I don't take the time to work on the articles themselves? Because I don't want to see this wiki turn restrictive like Memory Alpha! :::And, yes, Seventy, thank you very much for all of your contributions -- you are making this a better wiki. But this wiki isn't about restricting creativity -- it's about providing information on licensed work subjects and canonical subjects. We've chosen to interpret that as also providing supplemental, fan-created images of licensed works' subjects until such time as licensed images become available because including more graphical elements makes the wiki a more informative, more user-friendly database. And since differences of interpretation are a major component of reading literary works, it becomes perfectly appropriate for there to even be multiple supplemental images reflecting the different interpretations of the works that are out there. :::Please, let's not turn into an incredibly strict Memory Alpha wannabe. Let's be open and creative and informative and comprehensive. -- Sci 19:44 15 OCT 2006 UTC :::: Bravo, Sci. --Turtletrekker 20:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC) :Maybe because we actually have '' a Sackoff pic, and incidently, permission from the artist, who is thrilled at the prospect of his/her pic being used here, and has expressed interest in helping us out further. ::Arguments about creativity aside, I'm of the opinion that people coming through the site who aren't privy to the discussions about fantasy casting on TrekBBS would view a picture of Sackhoff (or Tapping) in a Starfleet uniform as "cheesy." Especially if it's a Poser-created CGI uniform as that picture is. No offense to the artist, it's a good image, but it doesn't look "realistic" enough. ''If everyone wants an image of Sackhoff, then let's create one specifically for the wiki, based on actual screencaps. Ultimately, though, I'm against the idea of a Vale image altogether until we get one on a novel cover. I also hate the Eisenhower-Zife image. Had I been here when that went up, I'd have voted against it. --TimPendragon 00:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC) A bit late here but... the Vanguard emblem vote is moot now, since we lack permission, as Turtletrekker notes below. As for the Sackoff-as-Vale pic, I'll give a qualified "no". Even before getting into the other issues involved, that particlular shot of Sackoff is simply too iconographic of her as Kara Thrace/Starbuck (it's from a Galactica publicity shot, am I correct?). That's probably one of the biggest technical barriers to creating such images: the highest-resolution originals to work from are usually too well-known to be used here.--Emperorkalan 11:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Vanguard Emblem *'Yes' --Turtletrekker 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'Yes' --Seventy 01:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'Yes' --TimPendragon 06:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'Yes' --The Doctor 06:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'Yes' --Julianbaischir 14:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'Yes' --JDB *'Yes' --Sci 03:54 15 OCT 2006 UTC It's a shame that we have a image that everybody agrees on, but not the permission of the creator. Marco Palmieri finally e-mailed me back and wrote the following... :The Vanguard emblem is purely tentative at this point, so I think it would be counterproductive to put something on Memory Beta that may never become official within the context of the Vanguard novels. Thanks for the interest, though. Oh, well. --Turtletrekker 00:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC) To be clear, the image has long since been deleted and this discussion was moved to this page on June 15th, 2008. --Jdvelasc 13:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Katie Sackoff as Vale *'Yes' --Turtletrekker 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'No' --Seventy 01:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'No' --TimPendragon 06:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'Yes' --The Doctor 06:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'No' --Julianbaischir 14:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'Yes' --JDB *'Yes'--Sci 03:54 15 OCT 2006 UTC *'No'--8of5 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC) *'No'--Emperorkalan 11:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC) This is now officially a no vote (5-4) but as with the Vanguard emblem discussion above, the debate was long over. --Jdvelasc 13:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Vale Image This image has just been uploaded, it isn't great quality, has text up one side, and the appearance of Vale is a controversial issue, still I thought I'd test it here before taking the deletion route, bit of variety. -- 8of5 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) VOTES * No --8of5 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Not approved. Image has been deleted. --Jdvelasc 14:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Altered Harb Tanzer Image The only official image ever released of novel character Harb Tanzer (top image) in comic form was colored wrong in two significant ways-- first, his hair in the novels is always described as being white, not brown. Second, his uniforms turtleneck and strap are the wrong departmental color. I started "fixing" the image, seeing if a more accurate rendition could be made. For the green of the turtlneck and strap, I extracted the color of McCoy's uniform found here. For the hair, I tried to "replace the dark brown with a darker grey and the lighter brown with white. I tried to keep the texture and style of the hair consistant with the original image, but that was the tricky part. The bottom image is what I came up with. I think that, if approved, the line about the coloring error that is currently there, should be replaced with something like, "The above image has been altered in order to portay a more accurate image of the character. For the image in it's original form click here." Votes *'Yes'--Turtletrekker 06:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC) *'No' -- Data Noh 12:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC) *'No' --Seventy 14:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC) *'No' --8of5 15:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC) *'No' --Emperorkalan 01:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Discussion I'm not familiar with this character, can you explain why the image should be changed to reflect how he is described in an appearance in a novel over how he actually appears in a comic? --8of5 06:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC) :In all of Diane Duane's novels, and he is in most of them, his "shock-white" hair is often described as his most noticable feature. I know comics back then didn't like to use a lot of white because the image on the other side of the old newsprint comic page would bleed through, so that may have been the source of the error. :As for the uniform, as Captain Mike pointed out in the article, Tanzer is always described as being under McCoy, in a sub-section of medical. Hence the green. --Turtletrekker 07:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC) :ETA: I've actually found his hair described as "silver" in "The Wounded Sky" (Ch.2), "Spock's World" (Enterprise: one) , and "My Enemy, My Ally"(Ch.2) with a minimum of searching. I'm sure I remember the "shock-white" decription from somewhere. --Turtletrekker 07:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC) ::But this is how he appeared in the comic, if a character was described in books as having big ears and then had little ones in the comic would you want to magic them big? There was a discussion over at the Trek BBS recently over how one of the New Frontier characters had less red than described (in the novels) skin the Double Time, same issue? ::The character could have dyed his hair and had a go in another department for a few weeks? Who knows, but from the sounds of it this isn't much different than any other continuity issue, show both note differences. --8of5 07:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC) :::I would be more in favor of only using the original licensed images, and noting any discrepancies. -- Data Noh 12:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC) ::::Yes that was what I meant actually, show the original, the both being the text decribing him differently, and note the differences. --8of5 13:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC) I find it fascinating that this topic would even be broached before there was even an effort at writing a halfway decent article for the character. When the explanatory sidenote for the complementary illustration is 3x longer than the actual entry, there's something very wrong. To hell with the pic, in either form. --Seventy 14:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC) :Agreed, absolutely. --Vote Saxon 20:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC) ::I agree with the spirit of your comment, but not your tone, Seventy. The supplementary image is probably not going to be called for, but a simple "no" would have sufficed. -- Captain MKB 16:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC) No sweat off my behind, as I just did the image out of fun. Seventy, you take this place way too seriously if something as monumentaly insignificant as this gets you all hot and bothered. This is a wiki about a fictional universe. Furthermore, its about fictional aspects of a fictional universe. You know, none of get paid to do this. We do this for fun, and it quite frankly just really isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. Certainly it's not important enough to get even a little bit upset over. Bad attitudes like yours just bring the place down and discourages new contributers, and will only serve to be detrimental to the wiki in the long run. Remember, if you're not doing this for fun, then you need to get out into the real world more. That being said, this whole place isn't as fun as it used to be. Once upon a time, supplemental images were embraced instead just being rejected in a knee-jerk "no" reaction. It was a lot more open (But still with boundarys. What Vorta Expert tried to get away with would never have been tolerated) and open to speculations based on established facts. This place has truly gone from being under-moderated to having too many chefs stirring the soup. As for the length of the article, it will soon be in the upper 10% in length, as there is more than enough info about the character to make having a pic in the article worthwhile. As for why I didn't do so sooner, I saw that Captain Mike seemed to be writing up characters from My Enemy, My Ally, and I didn't want to step on any toes. Sheesh... --Turtletrekker 22:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC) :::I'm OK with the use of altered images (as long as they are identified as such). My objection is merely technical: the altered image shown is very washed out. It needs better masking so that only the areas to be altered are changed. So my "no" is for this particular image; if a better version is presented, I'm inclined to approve it.--Emperorkalan 02:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC) ::::I'm fine with altering images if they are to show something otherwise unshowable, a mirror universe version of someone not seen onscreen for instance. But that is not the case here, this is a continuity error, I don't see how it's any different than an error in a text, note it's there but ultimately we have to accept that is how it is in licensed product, it is not our place to force things into one continuity. --8of5 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC) ::We should totally have a contributors' picnic or something. Happiness :o) -- Data Noh 02:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Mirror B'Elanna images File:Mirrortorres.JPG|color version File:B'Elanna, Daughter of Miral (Mirror).jpg|Pencil version These two images were uploaded by TorresOmega593 on 2 July, but obviously being a new user he wasn't aware of the procedure for supplemental images. At any rate, the image is quite good and the only other alternative image of the B'Elanna (mirror) would be from the cover for Obsidian Alliances. However, if we do keep an image I would go for the color version. --Dr. John Smith 09:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC) :Could be worse, but could also be better, and as a cover image is available I think we should use that.--8of5 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Hey, thanks for the compliments. These images were uploaded by me, they are only sketches, the final one is not complete, but if you like, you can remove them until i have the final one complete then you can take a vote as to whether you want the Mirror Torres image kept or not. Thanks guys! Vote * Keep colored version, delete other. --Dr. John Smith 09:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) * Delete both versions --8of5 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC) * Delete both --Seventy 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) * Delete both --Jdvelasc 17:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Federation Council and Palais de la Concorde Insignia An artist who posts on the TrekBBS under the name "Harry" was kind enough to produce some insignia for the Federation Council and Palais based upon the Federation President seal. We have his permission to add them to Memory Beta, so I'd hope we could do just that. -- Sci 18:52 27 FEB 2008 UTC :Is there anything in the novels that describes the Council and Palais having their own logos? If not I think we should just stick with the standard federation emblem. --8of5 04:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC) ::I agree with 8 that barring a little more direct sourcing, we should shy away from adding insignias just because they look neat. However, some of the other flags and things in that thread are basically "clean-ups" of flags and banners seen on-screen, and so might be appropriate, even if just for an "unidentified banner/flag" page. (Just a side note: A while back I made external links to Harry's Titan Fleet Yards site for the Marshall and Mann classes. We could probably do the same for the FASA and SFTM designs he has there too. (not using the art, just pointing to his site for better-quality scematics.))--Emperorkalan 12:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC) :If that's the case, then I wonder if we should reconsider what the point of having supplemental images really is. We didn't require direct evidence that the Federation Department of Temporal Investigations has its own insignia before allowing that one, for example. -- Sci 23:43 7 MARCH 2008 UTC ::Well indeed, there are quite a lot of images voted in around the same time that I would probably have rejected then, and certainly would now if they were nominated. --8of5 23:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC) File:Bombay.jpg Submitted by Cicero. -- Cicero 13:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC) :Artist's conception of the USS Bombay. -- Cicero I do believe there are several sources we could get imagery of a pre-refit Miranda class vessel from (RPGs, Legacy, ). So I see no need use fan-made imagery for this purpose. --8of5 14:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I haven't seen a TOS Miranda before that wasn't a crummy game model or a line drawing. This is pretty cool (I know that shouldn't be a key rationale, but it does contribute), and I'd like to see it continue for the Bombay . . . and maybe other TOS Mirandas?--Efryed 06:16 17 June 2008 (UTC) :Let's see a comprehensibly modeled image rather than a gif-bash. And licensed sources supercede fan images regardless of quality... -- Captain MKB 07:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC) :Why would that be? If a fan-made image matches the specifications of the licensed source, but is of better quality, why reject the fan image? Too, why would it matter how the image was made? What's better about a render than a photo-manip? It's just the final image that matters. How do you know it isn't a render, anyway? I can't tell.--Efryed 14:43 18 June 2008 (UTC) ::Because there is another wiki for fan made stories and images. This wiki is for licensed images and stories. See the difference? --> we should use the licensed images whenever possible -- Captain MKB 04:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :You've got a point somewhat, Captain MKB, but I don't think we should include fan-made illustrative images of superior quality to available liscenced images in those we exclude. (Long-time reader, first time poster, but I'd like to think I'm included in the 'we' of Memory Beta.) Since images are included only to illustrate and to make the site more appealing, I don't see what the big deal is, especially since the author of two of the Vanguard novels expressed his positive opinion of the image over at the trekbbs. I don't really see why a licensed image of lesser (or even poor) quality should supersede a better image that's made by a fan when the whole purpose of images is to make articles nicer looking and clearer. My two cents.--bluethought 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC) ::Images are included only to ... make the site more appealing -- Not true actually -- most wikis restrict images that are not informative in their nature. We're trying to convey how publications and media illustrate these things. If the ship hadn't been seen, I might not push this point, but this ship has been sufficiently visualized in multiple sources -- by using the fan image we are choosing not to inform a reader about a valid published medium -- and our purpose is to inform the reader about published media. ::I might even grant the point that a comic image of a ship might not be high-quality, but the video game source that has a ship like this is (to my knowledge) of a superior nature -- we should pursue that end before we start reinventing the wheel with original images. -- Captain MKB 22:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC) My question for Cicero is just which "crummy game model(s)" he's referring to: Models from game mods? (which we have avoided thus far) or models from an actual game? (I can't think of any outside of , and I don't count that as a "crummy" model.) As for the image in question, it's a better photo-manip than many I've seen, so I don't want to discourage Cicero from making future contributions of this sort. How about a Legacy screencap edited to the Bombay's markings? I'll see what I can do about providing a potential base image for that.--Emperorkalan 11:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC) ::It looks like efryed mentioned "crummy game model(s)", not Cicero (does he usually participate in discussion of one of his photo-manips?). I know both of them IRL, so I'll remind her to come back and reply (I'm pretty sure Cicero isn't coming back, but I don't know what turned him off the wiki, so I could be wrong).--bluethought 6:55 , 30 June 2008 (UTC) In the thread Vanguard Fan Art on the TrekBBS, Vanguard author David Mack said this of the image: "I love it! Thanks, Cicero!" Does that help?– Cicero 07:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC) If this is still an open discussion, Captain Mike has attempted to use File:TOS Miranda.jpg on the page; I prefer that image over this one. This image is head on, and gives no sense of shape or dimension for the vessel. It just looks like a saucer and nacelles, with a planetary body in the background to draw the eye. --Captain Savar 04:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC) ;VOTES *'Yes' -- Cicero 14:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC) *'No'--8of5 14:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC) *'Yes'--Efryed 06:16 17 June 2008 (UTC) *'No'--Captain MKB 07:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC) *'Yes'--bluethought 21:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC) *'No'--Seventy 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC) *'No'--OuroborosCobra talk 15:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC) *'Yes' -- Sci 17:17 29 JUNE 2008 UTC *'No' --Captain Savar 04:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC) File:Artist's rendition of Captain Afsarah Eden.jpeg Photoshop uploaded by a new user, based on (?) a description of Afsarah Eden? I'm not sure about this one, but I'm leaning towards No. -- Captain MKB 17:51, November 15, 2009 (UTC) :Nay. Captain Eden is specifically described as having brown skin in Unworthy. -- Sci 04:04 18 NOV 2009 UTC :No - I haven't read any of the material, but on Sci's assertion above, as well as the low quality of the image, i'm confirming my negative vote. -- Captain MKB 09:48, November 18, 2009 (UTC) :No - for the reasons given above. --The Doctor 12:51, November 18, 2009 (UTC) :No - Doesn't fit description, and the photo-editing/masking edges are far too obvious. --Emperorkalan 21:50, November 18, 2009 (UTC) File:'Elanna.JPG Not sure this one ever got a fair vote... does anyone think we should keep this mirror B'Elanna image? -- Captain MKB 21:15, November 27, 2009 (UTC) :Nah, if we need a pic of B'Elanna in Klingon armour I'd have thought we could get one without the need to manipulate anything. She's surely worn it once or twice on screen at some point? --8of5 15:15, November 28, 2009 (UTC) ::That's not Klingon armor, it's a mirror universe Alliance uniform. -- Captain MKB 02:28, May 27, 2011 (UTC) *'No' -- Captain MKB 21:15, November 27, 2009 (UTC) *'No' --8of5 15:15, November 28, 2009 (UTC) *'No' --Columbia clipper 18:02, November 28, 2009 (UTC) Colorized IKS emblem I'd like opinions on wether we can (or should) use a colorized version of the Imperial Klingon States emblem. For the record: FASA only printed a B&W version (in The Triangle (book), of which the unmodified version shown is a direct scan. The never produced (nor specifically described) a color one. However, since it's a bit stark in a color medium, I made a colorized version based on the color sceme of the TOS Klingon emblem we have up (see, for example, Battle of Donatu V). The lightning/squigggly bolt uses one of the darker reds from our general Klingon Empire emblem. Is this within the bounds of acceptability here?--Emperorkalan 20:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC) :I'm definitely happy with the image and having one with color is definitely preferable. It's not as if you have changed anything about the symbol itself and the colors used have been used for the official Klingon trefoil design. --Dr. John Smith 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC) ::Hmm, that's very nice, but I'm not sure about the appropriateness, I could be swayed either way. --8of5 21:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC) :::I think the nearest example would be File:Al-Rashid.jpg (the Presidential Transport), in that it merely interpolates within a well-established framework. It's not being sprung from whole cloth here -- it's just adding color to an actual FASA design. B&W was an appropriate choice for a printed page, but on a web page, next to all the blues and reds from the hyperlinked text, it seems oddly jarring. (and the whole point of such an illustration is to add "color" to the text, not throw you out of context by thinking "Yikes! That looks AWFUL!".) :::I'd insist on the TOS color scheme even if it weren't my own item because that's what FASA used whenever they printed a Klingon emblem in color. For me, the real question was how to handle the bolt, and lacking any clear markers I made a relatively conservative choice. It's also an item where we can clearly record its pedigree (unlike, say, the Starfleet Intelligence symbol we use), so we don't leave any room for confusion.--Emperorkalan 11:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Generally I am opposed to modifying perfectly acceptable images just to make them fit into what we like best, and to that end I will not vote in favour of this image. However, this is a reasonable sort of update so I won't vote against it either.--8of5 09:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC) :I'm swayed by the colourised image but the monotone emblem is the 'official' version. As you may have noticed I created a vector image of the colourised emblem which I was kindly informed was still under discussion. If you want me to I can change the colours to black if you'd like and TBH, I agree with Emperorkalan, the colours do look awful. ~ Gav236 (voicemail) • (nation) 17:58, August 26, 2010 (UTC) I have to say that the alteration in the .svg image is also jarring - the lower 'arm' of the trefoil has been misplaced and is touching the other part of the logo background. I'd have to say no to the colorization and a definite no to using the .svg image that alters the entire shape of the image. -- Captain MKB 14:58, February 26, 2011 (UTC) :::::Two yeses, two noes and a neutral and a couple years of interim time make this seem to not bea hot topic. -- Captain MKB 02:27, May 27, 2011 (UTC) Mandana I've uploaded the above image of Scottie Thompson, the actor who portrayed Nero's wife, Mandana, in makeup and costume on the film set. The copyright of the image belongs to Thompson, who released the image on her website (it's currently down) for promotional purposes, and on Girls2Watch.com, a career-promoting website for young female actors. I propose its use to illustrate the Mandana article. Mandana isn't clearly visible in the film, for artistic reasons. This image pictures the actress as she appeared in-costume, and in a setting that could pass for a field on Romulus. There are non-canon images of the character available, but none show the character's painted/tattooed markings, which were visible on screen. --Columbia clipper 23:25, July 31, 2010 (UTC) :This character appears in both the movie and comics, we simply don't need this additional behind the scenes image when we can comprehensively illustrate the character with existing in-universe sources. --8of5 19:32, August 1, 2010 (UTC) ::I'm going "neutral" right now. Certainly it is interesting to see those tattoos, but your statement has a bit of a non-sequitur, Columbia Clipper -- you state the tattoos can be seen onscreen, but you say there are no images available where the tattoos are visible? Which is it? -- Captain MKB 21:34, August 1, 2010 (UTC) :::I think Clipper meant that you can see in the movie that she has tattoos, but can't make them out very well. That's my interpretation, anyway. I like the image. --Archimedean 17:11, September 13, 2010 (UTC) I don't think whether or not we like the image is the issue, the fact is we already have perfectly adequate images of this character from more than one source. Images that are sufficient to illustrate what is quite a small article, so we simply do not need an additional unofficial images of this character. --8of5 17:23, September 13, 2010 (UTC) :I meant that I like it as a useful image. It shows what the character shown in the movie actually looked like. I don't think any screencaps or scans do that. --Archimedean 21:31, September 13, 2010 (UTC) ::And as a promotional image, is this shot copyrighted to appear as an illustration on this site? The note above says the page source is down, I'd have to assume that the image belongs to the actress -- and we have no way of determining if we are allowed to maintain her image here, especially considering it has been removed elsewhere on the net. -- Captain MKB 21:58, September 13, 2010 (UTC) :I don't know. Clipper says that the site that's down is her personal website, and that she released the image there and on Girls2Watch.com "for promotional purposes." That doesn't sound like the image was pulled - her website says its "under construction," but I don't know what it means the copyright situation is. Her official fan site also hosts the image. --Archimedean 22:08, September 13, 2010 (UTC) ::I'd like to see any of those sites have a statement of whether reuse of the image is allowed before we even considering using it in the article here, no matter what the votes say. -- Captain MKB 01:24, September 14, 2010 (UTC) :I can't find statements about use of their images. Both sites specifically declaim intended infringement on their webspace, but I don't see anything about third part use on either. --Archimedean 01:52, September 14, 2010 (UTC) * Yes -- Columbia clipper 23:25, July 31, 2010 (UTC) * No --8of5 19:32, August 1, 2010 (UTC) * Yes --Archimedean 17:11, September 13, 2010 (UTC) * Yes --Not Spock 22:44, September 27, 2010 (UTC) :Since we do not have clear license (free use, fair use, permission/permitted use), i have to say this topic is at a standstill. -- Captain MKB 02:27, May 27, 2011 (UTC)